Why are there so many wooden box speakers out there?

I understand that wood is cheap and a box is easier to make than a sphere but when the speaker companies charge tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for their speakers, shouldnt consumers expect more than just a typical box? Are consumers being duped?

Back in the 70’s a speaker engineer found that a sphere was best for a speaker. A square box was the worst and a rectangular box was marginally better.

The speaker engineers have surely known about this research so why has it been ignored?

Cabasse is the only company doing spheres. Should wooden boxes be made illegal


Andrew Jones is out with a new concentric two-way….it’s a box.  

oh dear.

Thanks to Kenjit, above, for an OK answer to my intervention. I take a leaf from your book ok but maybe not the whole book. You raise a good question.

It is easy to dismiss and make fun of. But unless we point out the critical problems in audio, we won't make progress. And this box-wood-easy-piece tendency seems like a real problem, yes. Even if the higher level marketplace is (all the more?) dominated by a huge variety of speaker forms, shapes and types. This is part of what makes the hobby interesting, for me.

Should a speaker be spherical or square? Rigid and dead, or should it "sing" a bit, along with the drivers? 

There is now new evidence that the shape of the violin helps produce a third note beyond the two being played. This has been known by players and violin makers for centuries but now there are hard data too. The better the third tone, the more  costly the violin. 



Andrew Jones is out with a new concentric two-way….it’s a box.

I've mentioned upthread that the two pyramid parallelepiped shapes tested per the Olson paper @kenjit cites performed approximately as well as the ideal sphere. Guess which shape Jones actually used? Hint: it wasn't a rectangular prism.